Allowed

Suresh Majhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Dec 2018BLAPL/4877/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CrPC Section 439 bail application reconsidered after trial commenced. Court released petitioner on bail pending completion of trial due to lack of material implicating them despite some new witness examinations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, appearing weekly at police station, avoiding contact with witnesses, and appearing in court.

Suresh Majhi Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

BLAPL No. 4877 of 2018

¶2

05.09.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State.

¶3

This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with Balasore Sadar P.S.Case No.21 of 2017 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 196 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Balasore for alleged commission of offences under sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶4

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore vide order dated 19.01.2018.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No. 4985 of 2017 was rejected as per order dated 05.12.2017, but thereafter the trial has commenced and eleven witnesses have been examined so far and none of the witnesses has implicated the petitioner in any manner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per the order dated 23.07.2019, two more witnesses, namely, Bibhuti Patra and Bimal Behera, who implicated the petitioner in the conspiracy part, were yet to be examined and order was passed directing the I.I.C., Balasore Sadar Police Station to appear in person before the learned trial Court and receive summons in respect of those two witnesses and to ensure their attendance on

¶7

the date fixed, which was stated to be 22.08.2019. It is further submitted that in pursuance of such order, the I.I.C., Balasore Sadar Police Station appeared before the learned trial Court, received summons and ensured the attendance of Bibhuti Patra, who was examined as P.W.11 and he has not supported the prosecution case. So far as the witness Bimal Behera, charge-sheet witness No.19 is concerned, the I.I.C. gave a report to the learned trial Court that the said witness could not be traced out and none including the Sarpanch of the village could able to tell his whereabouts.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.03.2017 and in view of the materials available on record, when no material has come against the petitioner and there is change in the circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably reconsidered. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses, which are taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State was supplied with the copies of the depositions, who after going through the same, submitted that the witnesses examined so far in the trial Court have not stated anything against the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that since trial has progressed, once the

¶11

petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence. He further submitted that another case has been instituted against the petitioner and others in connection with Balasore Town P.S.Case No. 28 of 2017 and in support of such submission, he files the copy of the F.I.R. of that case.

¶12

On verification of the same, it is found that in the said case, the petitioner is not an accused.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant files another copy of the F.I.R., which is dated 20.02.2018, which has been instituted against the petitioner and others.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was in judicial custody at that point of time, it appears to be a false allegation.

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant has filed a list, which indicates the criminal antecedents against the petitioner.

¶16

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of accusation against the petitioner, progress of trial and since till date no material has come against the petitioner in the alleged crime and taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner, I am inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail and direct release the petitioner on bail.

¶17

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/(rupees twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each

¶18

for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that he shall appear before the I.I.C., Balasore Sadar Police Station once in a week on every Sunday in between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial, shall not keep any contact with the prosecution witnesses and shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date to which the case would be posted for trial.

¶19

Violation of any terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶20

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶21

PKSahoo

¶22

…………………..…… S.K.Sahoo, J.

Suresh Majhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Majhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banshidhar Giri Vs Sanat Ku.Das

Sudhanjali Palo Vs Prasanna Ku.Patro

Sastri Charitable Trust Vs a.O.of the United Bank of India

Chandan Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Samal Vs State of Odisha